Japan considers cutting U.N. funding.

[heartsurgeon]

linky

pretty interesting article from several viewpoints:

Japan contributes 20% of all U.N. funding
U.S. + Japan = 42% of all U.N. funding
Germany+France < Japan in U.N. funding

funny part is Japan feels they "don't get any respect" even though they are #2 in funding the U.N.
HAHAHHA
like we get any respect at the U.N.....

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
funny part is Japan feels they "don't get any respect"

Did they hire Rodney Dangerfield as their spokesman?

Though their contribution sounds about the same as britain or france, when considered as funding per capita (japan has 180mil, compared with 60 mil for each britain and france with roughly equal per capita GDP).

 

[TheBDB]

France should be taken off the Security Council and Japan put in instead. I am not a mindless French basher, but they just aren't very important anymore, especially compared to Japan.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: TheBDB
France should be taken off the Security Council and Japan put in instead. I am not a mindless French basher, but they just aren't very important anymore, especially compared to Japan.

If you want to replace anyone of the veto weilding countries, Britain would have to be the first one to go, as they are the weakest of the five. In fact, both Germany and Japan would make better candidates than Britain.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: TheBDB
France should be taken off the Security Council and Japan put in instead. I am not a mindless French basher, but they just aren't very important anymore, especially compared to Japan.

If you want to replace anyone of the veto weilding countries, Britain would have to be the first one to go, as they are the weakest of the five. In fact, both Germany and Japan would make better candidates than Britain.

I was actually thinking Britain and France should be replaced by Japan and the EU. The EU could have it rotate through it's members or vote on a representative or whatever.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: TheBDB
France should be taken off the Security Council and Japan put in instead. I am not a mindless French basher, but they just aren't very important anymore, especially compared to Japan.

If you want to replace anyone of the veto weilding countries, Britain would have to be the first one to go, as they are the weakest of the five. In fact, both Germany and Japan would make better candidates than Britain.

I was actually thinking Britain and France should be replaced by Japan and the EU. The EU could have it rotate through it's members or vote on a representative or whatever.

that would make sense, though I would wait on that change for 5 years or so since the EU isnt exactly that stable right now, and another change, no veto powers

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: TheBDB
France should be taken off the Security Council and Japan put in instead. I am not a mindless French basher, but they just aren't very important anymore, especially compared to Japan.

If you want to replace anyone of the veto weilding countries, Britain would have to be the first one to go, as they are the weakest of the five. In fact, both Germany and Japan would make better candidates than Britain.

I was actually thinking Britain and France should be replaced by Japan and the EU. The EU could have it rotate through it's members or vote on a representative or whatever.

Well, that can't work today, but it can happen when the EU has a common foreign policy..and it will take quite a bit of time before that happens.

 

[Gaard]

I wonder if Japan would feel this way if the UN did away with the veto power all together?

I don't know if this is a stupid question, but I wonder if the world would be better or worse if the UN did away with the veto power of SC members.

 

[AnImuS]

I agree Japan & Germany should replace britain and france.

Anyone have an idea how much China puts in?

 

[ReiAyanami]

Antarctica is the most under represented faction in the UN, who will defend the penguins? U'd be surprised at how little Linux cash they get.

 

[0roo0roo]

20%? thats unfair, esp considering they aren't on the council.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I wonder if Japan would feel this way if the UN did away with the veto power all together?

I don't know if this is a stupid question, but I wonder if the world would be better or worse if the UN did away with the veto power of SC members.

If anything, I think the Iraq War shows the need for Veto Power. If there was no Veto Power, the US/Britain would have had the blessing of the UN for this unnecessary war.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Gaard
I wonder if Japan would feel this way if the UN did away with the veto power all together?

I don't know if this is a stupid question, but I wonder if the world would be better or worse if the UN did away with the veto power of SC members.

If anything, I think the Iraq War shows the need for Veto Power. If there was no Veto Power, the US/Britain would have had the blessing of the UN for this unnecessary war.

huh??? the votes didn't work out that way. No one vetoed.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Gaard
I wonder if Japan would feel this way if the UN did away with the veto power all together?

I don't know if this is a stupid question, but I wonder if the world would be better or worse if the UN did away with the veto power of SC members.

If anything, I think the Iraq War shows the need for Veto Power. If there was no Veto Power, the US/Britain would have had the blessing of the UN for this unnecessary war.

huh??? the votes didn't work out that way. No one vetoed.

No one vetoed, because no one voted. The lack of a second resolution(approving the Iraq Invasion) was the result of Frances vow to veto.

 

[Gaard]

Would it have received a majority?

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Gaard
I wonder if Japan would feel this way if the UN did away with the veto power all together?

I don't know if this is a stupid question, but I wonder if the world would be better or worse if the UN did away with the veto power of SC members.

If anything, I think the Iraq War shows the need for Veto Power. If there was no Veto Power, the US/Britain would have had the blessing of the UN for this unnecessary war.

And The UN would have actually done the right thing for a change.

 

[glugglug]

The UN needs to be dismantled because they won't go along with the "my way or the highway" attitude of the Bush Regime.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Would it have received a majority?

Not sure. There were times when many thought so, but it seemed to depend on when the question was asked.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: NesuD

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Gaard
I wonder if Japan would feel this way if the UN did away with the veto power all together?

I don't know if this is a stupid question, but I wonder if the world would be better or worse if the UN did away with the veto power of SC members.

If anything, I think the Iraq War shows the need for Veto Power. If there was no Veto Power, the US/Britain would have had the blessing of the UN for this unnecessary war.

And The UN would have actually done the right thing for a change.

Matter of opinion, one I don't share.

 

[heartsurgeon]

I don't know if this is a stupid question, but I wonder if the world would be better or worse if the UN did away with the veto power of SC members.

The U.N probably wouldn't exist at all if the Security Council members didn't have veto powers. No one on the security council who has veto powers will ever give it up.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: glugglug
The UN needs to be dismantled because they won't go along with the "my way or the highway" attitude of the Bush Regime.

the UN needs to be done away with because they are worthless. they cant uphold any of their resolutions and their peace keeping forces arent doing any peace keeping. not only that, but theyve allowed corrupt nations with totalitarian dictators to have posirions of power.

this appeasement crap doesnt fly, and it needs to end.

 

[gaga38]

Originally posted by: sandorski

No one vetoed, because no one voted. The lack of a second resolution(approving the Iraq Invasion) was the result of Frances vow to veto.

you forgot the russian and china vow to veto too lol